If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Player intrusion from next court

Whilst playing a doubles match at my club (social but of a high standard), during a rally, a player from the next court let his momentum carry on into our court on my opponents side. This intrusion occurred whilst the shuttle was at my opponents end. I called Let as soon as I noticed but I was a bit slow so it was called after my opponent had hit the shuttle and when the shuttle was on it's way back.

The rally stopped and my opponent said it was not my place to call Let because the invasion happened on his side during his shot. My immediate thought was of embarrassment for calling out Let when I thought I shouldn't have so I offered him the point for the rally and we carried on.

After we finished the game, I started to think about this and then thought that had the intrusion been a shuttle from the next court then it wouldn't have mattered who called Let or who was affected by the shuttle. If a shuttle intrusion happened and someone called Let as soon as they noticed then it was valid. It seemed bizarre if this thinking didn't apply to a player invasion as well.

Just because it wasn't on your side of your court doesn't mean that it wouldn't affect you. The distraction it would cause to the player on the other side could easily disrupt the rally, let alone the danger posed by someone running on mid-game. Just think what would an umpire do; they would have certainly stopped the rally and called a let. My old club had a few notorious *court switchers* hahaha, they tend to be a law unto themselves :P

Whilst playing a doubles match at my club (social but of a high standard), during a rally, a player from the next court let his momentum carry on into our court on my opponents side. This intrusion occurred whilst the shuttle was at my opponents end. I called Let as soon as I noticed but I was a bit slow so it was called after my opponent had hit the shuttle and when the shuttle was on it's way back.

The rally stopped and my opponent said it was not my place to call Let because the invasion happened on his side during his shot. My immediate thought was of embarrassment for calling out Let when I thought I shouldn't have so I offered him the point for the rally and we carried on.

After we finished the game, I started to think about this and then thought that had the intrusion been a shuttle from the next court then it wouldn't have mattered who called Let or who was affected by the shuttle. If a shuttle intrusion happened and someone called Let as soon as they noticed then it was valid. It seemed bizarre if this thinking didn't apply to a player invasion as well.

Was my opponent right in his statement or was my call for Let valid?

A shuttle on the court affects everybody, so a let is more than fair. We always call lets for this, and nobody complains.

Think of it this way: would an umpire call a let if this happened in competition? Of course they would.

3.5.2A shuttle invading from an adjacent court shall not automatically be considered a “let”.A “let” shall not be called if, in the opinion of the umpire, such invasion:3.5.2.1has gone unnoticed by the players; or 3.5.2.2
has not obstructed or distracted the players

So just changing the word shuttle to 'person'. The person has under 3.5.2.2 distracted one of the players, therefore, an umpire would call a let in that case in a match. It doesn't matter if the player hitting the shot doesn't see it, you got distracted; whatever shot he does will be hard for you to return because you weren't paying attention to the rally.